Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Matts (1087)

  (email not shown publicly)

I work for MessageLabs [] in Toronto, ON, Canada. I write spam filters, MTA software, high performance network software, string matching algorithms, and other cool stuff mostly in Perl and C.

Journal of Matts (1087)

Thursday October 23, 2003
12:12 PM


[ #15350 ]

I think I need a faster box:

top - 18:11:38 up 195 days, 23:17,  7 users,  load average: 10.17, 5.32, 5.43
Tasks: 477 total,  13 running, 462 sleeping,   1 stopped,   1 zombie
Cpu(s):  13.6% user,  86.4% system,   0.0% nice,   0.0% idle
Mem:    514032k total,   511800k used,     2232k free,     2344k buffers
Swap:   401584k total,   401584k used,        0k free,    31720k cached

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • memory (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gav (2710) on 2003.10.23 12:36 (#25105) Homepage Journal
    Looks like adding some memory (and swap) might be a cheaper way to fix the problem.
    • Am I right in guessing that killing all spammers would be a more satisfying solution to the load problem? Can we reclassify them as terrorists and get someone else to do the dirty work?

      Heck, why don't we swap them for the current detainees in Gauntanamo Bay? I think that the excahange would bring visible improvement to many people's lives.

      • s/Gaun/Guan/ But yes, it would be quite short distance even from Florida, the spamming state of the world, to Cuba...
      • Actually I think I might rather have the pleasure of killing the spammers myself ;-)

        (after a little torture of course).
    • Memory would help, yes, but adding swap wouldn't necessarily. Swap helps one to have more jobs or bigger jobs, but not faster jobs.
      • Re:memory (Score:3, Insightful)

        not to mention top is just not a tool for system performance. It's like taking only your leg to the doctor for a flu diagnosis. Look at your IO and paging....and what might be jumping up the load queue like that. So many websites in the boom were on these giant E450s when most of the planet could have run on cheap U1s or PCs because noone wanted to look at what was really going on.
        • You could rephrase that last sentence slightly and still be accurate!

          So many websites were in the boom because no one wanted to look at what was really going on.

  • Others suggested that more memory would help; it could also be that faster disks would help ... :-)

    One of my boxes at home is an ancient ~300MHz celeron something with only 384MB memory. It has relatively fast SCSI disks though, so it's holding up quite well.

    -- ask bjoern hansen [], !try; do();